Apocalyptic Defined

Apocalyptic Defined

---

Before engaging in some of the literary comparisons, it is first necessary to attempt to understand the current usage of the terms apocalyptic,apocalypticism, and apocalypse. These three terms have often been confused. The latter two are nouns and the former is an adjective, though very often it is [mis]used as a noun. The term apocalypse is a term (noun) that identifies the type of genre the literature is. Apocalypticism is the religious ideology and/or the social construct that lies behind a given apocalypse. Apocalyptic is an adjective that describes not only the type of genre the body of writing is, but also conveys a particular way of viewing life¹. In short, it is a hermeneutical method applied to the contemporary life of the authors². 

J. J. Collins, as a part of the Society of Biblical Literature's 1970s commission to systematically analyze apocalyptic literature of both Jewish and Christian origins, cites the resulting collaborative definition: 

An apocalypse is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.³

The chart below breaks down this definition into its three component parts, thereby allowing for what this presentation will highlight as the significant contribution of such a definition. 

Chart 1A: SBL's Definition of Apocalyptic (1970)


As the chart reveals, there are essentially three component parts to the SBL's 1970s apocalyptic definition. The component parts have been labeled as the packaging component, the delivery component, and the contents component. There are problems with this definition as well as helpful aspects. These will be pointed out progressively in the following material. 

Virtually everyone in the scholarly field of New Testament studies recognizes the difficulty of defining exactly what apocalyptic is. Stone captures the reality of the difficulty with this statement: 

It must be stated at the outset that a great deal of the current discussion of apocalypticism and of the apocalypses is being carried on in the midst of a semantic confusion of the first order. The confusion turns on the relationship of apocalypticism (also called apocalyptic) and the apocalypses. ⁴

Later, in a footnote, Stone illustrates how scholars are grappling for some clarity on this issue, but making little, if any, progress. He laments the lack of help in this area from four authors who have recently written on the subject. These authors have specifically drawn attention to the problem, but none of them (in his opinion) have contributed any new insight that would provide greater clarity.⁵ 

There does seem to be a little bit of consistency developing in recent scholarship, however. The older definitions tended to be more descriptive, pointing out various features that seemed to be predominant within the apocalypses.⁶ Leon Morris, for instance, lists at least thirteen characteristics of apocalyptic.⁷ Klaus Koch sets out to provide a "preliminary definition" of apocalyptic in a chapter devoted specifically to that, but never really accomplishes his goal. His chapter on this preliminary definition has four subheadings: (1) the cloudiness of current definitions; (2) apocalypse as a literary type; (3) apocalypse as a historical movement; and (4) apocalyptic in the literature of late antiquity.⁸ There are many valuable observations that Koch makes in this chapter, but the definition seems to elude him. The closest he comes to a definition is that which he states on page 20: 

During the last century a collective term 'apocalyptic' has come into general use, side by side with the generic name apocalypse. It is applied not only to the common mental and spiritual background of the relevant late Israelite and early Christian writings but is used to characterize a certain kind of religious speculation about the future of man and the world. The meaning of the adjective apocalyptic... is generally determined by this collective term.⁹

Thus, Koch somewhat defines apocalyptic as a "religious speculation about the future of man and the world." 

The newer definitions of apocalyptic, though still mostly descriptive, tend to reduce the number of characteristic lists by highlighting the major universal characteristics such as "dualism and eschatology, or at least a revelation of heavenly mysteries."¹⁰ It appears that recent scholarship is becoming less rigid about defining apocalyptic merely in terms of literary form and is also factoring in the ideology contemporary with the apocalyptic writings. Kreitzer cites Rowland as an example of this. Although Rowland would give a central place to literary form for definitive purposes, he suggests that in addition to literary form, there must ever be "conformity to a common mode of religious experience which is expressed through that form."¹¹ 

A further development in recent scholarship is that proposed by Paul Hanson wherein he argues against a rigid genre distinction in favor of a gradual emergence of apocalyptic out of Israelite prophetic history (which will be explored more fully in the following section of material). This conviction is evident in the very title of his book, The Dawn of Apocalyptic¹² [For a critical review of this book, click here: Review of Hanson'sDawn of Apocalyptic]. The answer to the confusion surrounding apocalyptic lies in historical investigation, he believes. Rather than define "apocalyptic," instead, he uses it as an adjective to the term "eschatology" and then defines the qualified term. His definition of "apocalyptic eschatology" is: 

a religious perspective which focuses on the disclosure (usually esoteric in nature) to the elect of the cosmic vision of Yahweh's sovereignty-especially as it relates to his acting to deliver his faithful-which disclosure the visionaries have largely ceased to translate into the terms of plain history, real politics, and human instrumentality due to a pessimistic view of reality growing out of the bleak post-exilic conditions within which those associated with the visionaries found themselves. Those conditions seemed unsuitable to them as a context for the envisioned restoration of Yahweh's people.¹³

Using the same basic chart format as with the SBL's definition, Hanson's definition would look like the chart below [See Chart 1B]. Notice several differences between the SBL definition and Hanson's definition. First, Hanson does not stipulate about packaging. The SBL definition stipulates a narrative packaging of the material. It is true that the majority of apocalyptic works during the Second Temple Period are narrative accounts, but there are exceptions. Sibylline Oracles are in poetic form (epic hexameters, usually)¹⁴ and many would include them as examples of apocalyptic literature. They share many of the same features as apocalypses. Yet, since they are given the name "oracle," should they not be classified according to that genre (viz. oracle)? This observation may underscore Hanson's point. Perhaps "apocalyptic" should be used as an adjective and should primarily convey some notion of revelation (from the term apokalypsis, which means "a disclosure," "a revealing of something," or simply, "a revelation."). In such a case, the Sibylline Oracles should be a qualified genre and be sub-classified as "apocalyptic oracles" much like Hanson has designated a qualified classification of "apocalyptic eschatology." 

A second difference to be noticed between the two definitions is the delivery. Hanson's definition recognizes only that a visionary will receive revelatory disclosure, but the agent of the revelation is not stipulated. Perhaps the need for a heavenly agent is understood from the nature of revelation. 

Chart 1B: Hanson's Definition of Apocalyptic Eschatology


Finally, there is a greater emphasis in Hanson's definition on the mental outlook of the recipients of the revelation than is so in the SBL definition. The pessimism highlighted in Hanson's definition reflects a mood of the day and hints at the ideological disappointment of the contemporaries to the visionary. The visionary discloses in esoteric terms that Yahweh will have his day and will intervene for the faithful elect. 

The upshot of all of this regarding terminology is that though there is great confusion over the use and definition of terms, there are some things that have apparently solidified in scholarship by way of approaching and treating this unique literature. The first is that there are certain distinctive characteristics of apocalyptic literature, though it is not necessary for every feature to be present in a given work in order for it to maintain its classification as an apocalypse. Second, it is more than genre-related, but it is also literature that represents a social phenomenon. It is literature born out of crisis and was a means of addressing that crisis to a religious community. Many have observed this to be the case. Kreitzer summarizes it succinctly, when he says, "Apocalypticism is frequently defined as a social movement which arises out of a context of persecution in which a minority group within society feels alienated and seeks to express their hopes for the future in terms of an alternative symbolic universe."¹⁵ Third, (combining the ideas of the first two observations) it is literature that is hermeneutical by nature and seeks to interpret revelatory material in the face of social circumstances. In other words, Judaism, in the midst of political and social upheaval sought for an avenue (first observation) to express their questions and perplexities (second observation) that such calamity presented to their theology (third observation). Table 1 (below) summarizes these points in bullet fashion. 

Table 1: Summary of Apocalyptic Denominators¹⁶

---

¹J. Julius Scott, Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000): 182. 

²Ibid., 189. 

³J. J. Collins, "Apocalyptic Literature," Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000): 41. 

⁴Michael E. Stone, "Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature," in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, eds. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976): 439. 

⁵Ibid., 450. The authors he cites are Ebling, Betz, Von Rad, and Koch. 

⁶Scott, p. 182. 

⁷ Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (London: InterVarsity Press, 1972): 34-67. In fairness to Morris, he himself explicitly states that his book was "meant as a summary of the characteristics of apocalyptic" (cf. Preface to the Second Edition, n.p.). I found no place where he sought to define the term apocalyptic. The thirteen characteristics he lists are the following: revelations, symbolism, pessimism, the shaking of the foundations, the triumph of God, determinism, dualism, pseudonymity, a literary form, rewritten history, ethical teaching, prediction, and historical perspective. 

⁸Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press 1972): 18-35. 

⁹Ibid, p. 20. 

¹⁰Scott, p. 183. 

¹¹Larry J. Kreitzer, "Apocalyptic, Apocalypticism," in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, eds. Ralph Martin and Peter Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997): 58. 

¹²Paul Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, revised edition 1979): 16. 

¹³Ibid., pp. 12-13. 

¹⁴Cf. J. J. Collins, "Sibylline Oracles," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000): 1107. 

¹⁵Kreitzer, 58-59. Kreitzer is careful to take a middle ground approach between apocalypticism being a social movement or a social ideology. He suggests that in order for there to be a social movement, there has to be an ideology behind the movement that is driving it. So he seeks a balance between the two. E. P. Sanders, on the other hand, argues against apocalypticism as a social movement-or at least against the possibility of demonstrating the same simply through the literary evidence. His basic argument is that a survey of the ancient literature reveals a single author in ancient times had variegated interests and wrote accordingly. He does not believe there is evidence to state that Jews of the Second Temple period had to choose between apocalypticism and worship in the temple. Cf. E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992): 7-10. 

¹⁶This summary table is not to suggest that these are the only denominators of apocalyptic literature. Rather, it is intended to be a beginning point primarily for the purposes of this presentation.

---

Back to Apocalyptic Index 

Back to Apocalyptic and the NT Home Page

---

This page is provided by Roger DePriest, M.A., Ph.D. student, as part of the "Apocalyptic and the New Testament" site project.